Have anyone seen similar problems with the LR/ACR RAW conversion quality with the X-Pro1?

I have LR 3.6 and the Fuji X-Pro1, and have been patiently waiting for Adobe to provide RAW support for the camera, at which point I would upgrade to LR 4. I'm going to hope that the next LR update has a fix.

Considering the author failed to provide ANY details about the raw processing parameters, particularly the sharpening settings, I can not take this blog post seriously...the fact is that the in camera JPEG processing almost certainly has a degree of sharpening built in, and at default, I seriously doubt that LR 4.1 would match that. But I'm pretty darn sure that if the Detail panel settings were optimized, the processed raw file would actually be superior...

BTW tintop, I tend to be REAL skeptical when a first time poster posts a link to some other blog on their first post here on LuLa...makes me wonder about your motivation. Are you by chance the author of the blog post? If so, if you want to be taken seriously I would suggest posting exactly how the various images were processed and what settings were used. Also useful to make the raw files available for testing by peers...

Considering the author failed to provide ANY details about the raw processing parameters, particularly the sharpening settings, I can not take this blog post seriously...the fact is that the in camera JPEG processing almost certainly has a degree of sharpening built in, and at default, I seriously doubt that LR 4.1 would match that. But I'm pretty darn sure that if the Detail panel settings were optimized, the processed raw file would actually be superior...

BTW tintop, I tend to be REAL skeptical when a first time poster posts a link to some other blog on their first post here on LuLa...makes me wonder about your motivation. Are you by chance the author of the blog post? If so, if you want to be taken seriously I would suggest posting exactly how the various images were processed and what settings were used. Also useful to make the raw files available for testing by peers...

I left a comment on the blog asking for the link to the raw file that is mentioned in the beginning of the article. I could not find a link anywhere that I could download the raw file. I also asked about his development settings that were used in Lightroom. If I get a response, I will share the info here if anyone is interested.

My interest is purely related to honesty in reporting. It irritates me when people make statements (negative or positive) without providing me with information to assist me in making my own judgement.

The author of the blog has made a raw file available for download and has answered my request for his settings. You can see them in the comment section of the page that is linked above in the OP's original post in this thread.

I do not claim to be an expert with Lightroom, my aging eyes are not as sharp as they used to be (maybe I will get some glasses just for working on the computer), and any other disclaimer that you can insert here, but I find it very easy to take the raw file that was provided and to make a few adjustments in the HSL panel in Lightroom 4.1, add some sharpening amount and detail and end up with a superior image when compared to the out of camera jpg that the blog author provided. I do not see a real problem. Where in the heck is it written that the default settings in Lightroom (or any raw converter) should be superior, or even the same as the in camera jpeg processing?

On the Fuji forum it seems many are disappointed with the LR conversions. The samples I have seen done in LR, Silkypix and RPP show a definite difference in the processors with LR being the worst of the 3. These are comparing raw against raw not jpegs. I will try some of my own over the weekend to see as I really only trust my own conversions. Here is the link if you want to check.

No, I'm not affiliated with the website. I am new here and the posting was completely innocent. When I got home yesterday and read that LR had this update, I wanted to see if there was any more information about it. I did a search for lightroom raw support Fuji X-pro 1, and that site came up as one of the first (I've never heard of them before). The Fuji forum on dpreview had a couple more, but it seemed this one had some interesting comparisons, so I decided to post it. I actually thought about posting more than one website for the possibility that things might be misinterpreted, but I decided to include just one. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks for your explanation. First impressions :-).

Thanks for coming back and explaining...you can see how you OP could be misconstrued. As they say, no harm no foul...welcome to LuLa. Might be useful to do a quick intro so we get to know you...

No problem Jeff. I'm amateur and have done stereo photography for years (mostly 35mm and medium format, though have used a twinned digital rig since the early 2000's). I've wanted more than the small sensors in my twinned rig could give me, so my move to the Fuji X-Pro1 (I have one, BTW) was my first step to a more capable camera. It's small, inconspicuous, and produces just beautiful images. It's smaller size makes it easier to still do stereo than it would be with a DSLR. And I'm having fun experimenting with 2-D :-).

I moved from Photoshop to LR 3 after stumbling across LuLa late last year (I think as I was looking for information on the NEX 7). I decided to get the Fuji X-Pro1 because of what I was reading about its sensor and image quality. I've been converting the RAW files into TIFFs in Silkypix and then importing into LR. That's been working fine, but, needless to say, I've been waiting for RAW support in LR.

These first reviews of the RAW conversion quality have been somewhat concerning to me, so that's why I asked if others have done any independent testing. If there are some issues, I can wait because I'm sure they can be resolved.

BTW, I have three of the LuLa tutorials and you look great in those Hawaiian shirts.

I have the Fuji X-Pro 1 as well and I will run some of my images with it this weekend. I have seen other reports of the chroma issue as well, so I do hope they can fix it. Sean Reid also mentioned it in his write up on his site, he was running the beta version before release. He commented that is was noticeable especially in his conversions to b&w as the mid tones were affected.

In my pixel peeping with the LR converted raws I do see some evidence of smearing.That having been said, I'm looking forward to printing some of these. I'm hopeful that prints at A3 and smaller will look as good or better than the jpegs. The dynamic rangethat can be obtained with the raws is excellent as are the colors.

Burning my retinas with pixel peeping while zoomed in at 4:1 or more on an LCD seems a pointless endeavor.

I was just looking at my first batch of X-pro 1 files with new lightroom 4.1. I noticed a very disturbing digital smearing look. All of the windows of the city buildings had slightly rounded corners, instead of being perfect right angles when zoomed in at 100%. These raw files had the noise reduction set to 0 and the sharpening at default of 25. The raw files almost look like they have aggressive noise reduction, even though it is set to 0. Overall the raw conversions look more digital than files I am used to looking at. I hope they can improve on this process soon. I will have to try some comparisons in Capture One when it supports X-Pro 1.I am attaching a couple examples, although I am not sure how visible this will be with screen grabs.

I just photographed a grainy wet darkroom black and white print with my X-Pro 1. In these attached examples you can really see the digital smoothing that is occurring in these files. The same print was shot with my Phase One P45+ and when compared at 100% to the Fuji at 100% the difference is huge. The phase one looks like a photo of a photo. The fuji looks like a digital rendition of a photo. See attached images.

Hello. My first post here. I too was sceptical, especially with people just keeping sharpening on default. However, certain images set it off, e.g. a sign with red lettering on a white background. Or distant foliage:

The left is LR, the right RPP, both with about +40 sharpening. Image is at 200%. Much more detail in RPP.

Here's another, this time a crop showing frosted glass (like you get in bathroom windows) in a barn door. This time compared with JPEG.LR on left, JPEG on right, both at 200%, over sharpened to show the effect. Even comparing images at 100% view you can tell the LR rendition is not right. RPP makes the best job of it but the JPEG isn't bad.

Sharing in the hope that Adobe developers can find a fix as I think they will have a real winner when they do (not that I would stop experimenting with the excellent RPP).

This is to show the color smearing (an other issue) which frequently takes place, non only with LR but also, to a lesser extent, with other raw converters and with the OOC jpg's; kindly note how the white letters are smeared by the surrounding red:ARI_20120601_145457.jpg di Ario Arioldi, su Flickr